Julio Urrutia1, Pablo Besa2, Daniel Lobos2, Marcelo Andia3,4, Cristobal Arrieta4, Sergio Uribe3,4. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile. jurrutia@med.puc.cl. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile. 3. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta, 352, Santiago, Chile. 4. Biomedical Imaging Center, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Marcoleta 352, Santiago, Chile.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lumbar paraspinal muscle morphology has recently been evaluated in several studies with conflicting results. Several studies have performed single-slice evaluations of paraspinal muscle morphology, whereas other studies have done a multi-level assessment; this methodological difference might explain the observed different results. Our study evaluated if a single-slice axial measurement is representative of the entire lumbar musculature. METHODS: We included 80 adult patients who were consecutively evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for spinal symptoms. Using T2-weighted axial images, we measured the fat signal fractions (FSF) and cross-sectional area (CSA) of the erector spinae and multifidus at the five levels of the lumbar spine (from L1-L2 to L5-S1). We used the ANOVA test for repeated measurements (with Bonferroni correction) to compare the FSF and CSA among the levels. RESULTS: Erector spinae showed an increasing FSF from L1-L2 to L5-S1; all erector spinae FSF comparisons among the different levels were significantly different. Multifidus FSF also increased caudally below L2-L3, although significant differences were observed only with two or more levels of distance. The CSA of the erector spinae showed a caudal decrease (L4-L5 and L5-S1 being significantly smaller than all the levels above). The CSA of the multifidus showed that all levels exhibited a significantly different area compared to their adjacent level (except L5-S1 compared to L4-L5). CONCLUSIONS: No single-level FSF or CSA is representative of the whole lumbar spine. A standardized multi-level evaluation of the paraspinal musculature should be used in future research.
PURPOSE: Lumbar paraspinal muscle morphology has recently been evaluated in several studies with conflicting results. Several studies have performed single-slice evaluations of paraspinal muscle morphology, whereas other studies have done a multi-level assessment; this methodological difference might explain the observed different results. Our study evaluated if a single-slice axial measurement is representative of the entire lumbar musculature. METHODS: We included 80 adult patients who were consecutively evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for spinal symptoms. Using T2-weighted axial images, we measured the fat signal fractions (FSF) and cross-sectional area (CSA) of the erector spinae and multifidus at the five levels of the lumbar spine (from L1-L2 to L5-S1). We used the ANOVA test for repeated measurements (with Bonferroni correction) to compare the FSF and CSA among the levels. RESULTS: Erector spinae showed an increasing FSF from L1-L2 to L5-S1; all erector spinae FSF comparisons among the different levels were significantly different. Multifidus FSF also increased caudally below L2-L3, although significant differences were observed only with two or more levels of distance. The CSA of the erector spinae showed a caudal decrease (L4-L5 and L5-S1 being significantly smaller than all the levels above). The CSA of the multifidus showed that all levels exhibited a significantly different area compared to their adjacent level (except L5-S1 compared to L4-L5). CONCLUSIONS: No single-level FSF or CSA is representative of the whole lumbar spine. A standardized multi-level evaluation of the paraspinal musculature should be used in future research.
Authors: Florence P S Mok; Dino Samartzis; Jaro Karppinen; Daniel Y T Fong; Keith D K Luk; Kenneth M C Cheung Journal: Spine J Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Douglas G Chang; Robert M Healey; Alexander J Snyder; Jojo V Sayson; Brandon R Macias; Dezba G Coughlin; Jeannie F Bailey; Scott E Parazynski; Jeffrey C Lotz; Alan R Hargens Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 3.241
Authors: Zachariah W Pinter; Scott Wagner; Donald Fredericks; Ashley Xiong; Melvin Helgeson; Bradford Currier; Brett A Freedman; Christopher Kepler; Benjamin D Elder; Mohamad Bydon; Ahmad Nassr; Arjun S Sebastian Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.176